The MIT professor recently wrote that feminist literature left him “terrified” of his sexual desire. But is Dworkin to blame?
____
Feminism hurts men.
That’s not an original sentiment, but it has rarely been articulated so painfully, and with such good faith, as in a recent blog comment by MIT computer science professor Scott Aaronson. In a long, impassioned post, Aaronson explains that he was a nerdy guy in high school and beyond, and that his reading of feminist literature (especially Andrea Dworkin) left him with a paralyzing fear that his sexual desire would harm women.
“Here’s the thing: I spent my formative years — basically, from the age of 12 until my mid-20s—feeling not “entitled,” not “privileged,” but terrified. I was terrified that one of my female classmates would somehow find out that I sexually desired her, and that the instant she did, I would be scorned, laughed at, called a creep and a weirdo, maybe even expelled from school or sent to prison. You can call that my personal psychological problem if you want, but it was strongly reinforced by everything I picked up from my environment: to take one example, the sexual-assault prevention workshops we had to attend regularly as undergrads, with their endless lists of all the forms of human interaction that “might be” sexual harassment or assault, and their refusal, ever, to specify anything that definitely wouldn’t be sexual harassment or assault. I left each of those workshops with enough fresh paranoia and self-hatred to last me through another year.”
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
Aaronson says he actually begged a doctor at one point to chemically castrate him so that he could focus on math and science, and not be tormented by the terrible, terrifying threat of desire.
Laura Pennie had a compassionate response in which she argued that Aaronson’s anguish was the result of patriarchy, not of feminism—and Aaronson, who is himself strongly pro-feminist, agreed (albeit somewhat ambivalently). But neither of them really explain why Aaronson’s problems stem from patriarchy. After all, Aaronson’s fear of his body and his desire came from reading Andrea Dworkin. That sounds like feminism’s fault, not patriarchy’s. As Aaronson says, “the notion of ‘Patriarchy’ is sufficiently elastic as to encompass almost anything about the relations between the sexes that is, or has ever been, bad or messed up.”
If patriarchy is so diffuse, of what use is the concept? And how can it really explain Aaronson’s torment?
I have a two-part answer. First, I don’t think Aaronson’s torment was specifically linked to feminism because I had an experience much like his — and it didn’t have anything to do with reading feminist authors. I was a virgin through college and well beyond; I never kissed a woman until my wife decided that I was damn well going to, and made sure I did. I was certainly well-read in feminism (I liked Andrea Dworkin’s writing too), but I wasn’t terrified of dating because I feared I’d accidentally rape someone or be accused of sexual assault. I was just shy and nervous around women, and perhaps a bit unlucky. Based on my own experience, you can be a nerdy guy with more or less the same problems as Aaronson without feminism being the root issue — which suggests that feminism, maybe, isn’t the real culprit.
Second, I think it’s worth pointing out that Aaronson figures feminism as a prohibition enforced by violence and even, explicitly, by castration. You don’t need to be deeply versed in Freud to recognize that as a familiar dynamic. Feminism, in Aaronson’s account, fits precisely into the place of the ogre-father; the law-giving monster who hordes the women for him (or her) self. In his account, Aaronson even seems to see women and the patriarchs in collaboration against him: “The same girls who I was terrified would pepper-spray me and call the police if I looked in their direction, often responded to the crudest advances of the most Neanderthal of men by accepting those advances.” Feminism allocates women to the powerful brutes, and keeps them from the weak sons—which is exactly what is supposed to happen under patriarchy.
So does that mean that it’s all the fault of patriarchy, and feminism is blameless? Not precisely. Instead, it seems like Aaronson’s discussion points to ways in which feminism—or at least the radical feminism typified by Andrea Dworkin — can actually mirror, or reproduce, tropes from the patriarchy.
As I said, I admire Dworkin a lot; she’s a passionate writer, and an often brilliant analyst. But she does tend to see men as always everywhere the violent aggressors, and women as always everywhere the victims — a formulation which fits neatly into patriarchy’s vision of men as the important heroes and villains, dividing up the feminine bodies for spoils.
The main way that Dworkin reproduces patriarchy, though, is in her misandry. People often caricature feminists as man-haters, and Dworkin certainly could express great antipathy towards men and masculinity. But what both feminists and anti-feminists can be loath to admit is that patriarchy hates men too — and even more so. Who historically, has killed more men—men or women? Who murders men singly on the street, or slaughters them in wartime? It’s not women, for the most part. Nor is it an accident that cultural narratives, especially cultural narratives aimed at men, so often romanticize violence between guys: Superman vs. Lex Luthor; Skywalker vs. Vader, James Bond vs. Dr. No, Harry Potter vs. Voldemort, and on and on.
Patriarchy teaches men to envy and desire and loathe masculinity, both out there and in themselves. It positions women as victims or conquests in an internal male psychodrama, rather than as people in their own right. And that’s exactly the story Aaronson tells of his experience with feminism. Andrea Dworkin led him right into the same patriarchal hell as ever. The lesson of his parable, then, isn’t that feminism oppresses men. It’s that the struggle of feminism isn’t just to overthrow the patriarchal law, but to make sure that nothing, not even feminism, replaces it.
______
This article originally appeared on Ravishly.
For more like this from Ravishly, try:
Conservatives, feminists, MRAs, anti-feminists and white knights all harm men as a group. Why? Because each promotes or encourages some form of marriage, pedastalizes women, bargains for a better position at the slave table and/or fosters misandry. The number one way to destroy your life as a man is to get married. Tens upon tens of millions of men, in the US alone, in the past 40+ years, have been destroyed through marriage. In the aftermath of these divorces, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of these men took their own lives. Why? To escape the living hell many men go… Read more »
I agree, I also never understood how Feminists who claimed men were the cause of everything bad would then need or want us as “allies”.
“Nor is it an accident that cultural narratives, especially cultural narratives aimed at men, so often romanticize violence between guys: Superman vs. Lex Luthor; Skywalker vs. Vader, James Bond vs. Dr. No, Harry Potter vs. Voldemort, and on and on.” Briefly: I just think it’s telling that feminism sees all human conflict & antagonism through the lens of gender, elevating that above all else; relegating all archetypes to reductions of gender, rather than a myriad of other social, cultural, and narrative forces likewise embedded. But as someone else here once said: “When all you have is gender analysis, everything comes out… Read more »
Ugh, I typed a whole long comment and it just disappeared so I’ll just summarize here. Feminism and conservative religious ideology seem like they are 180 degrees apart but when feminists become too radical in their beliefs and filled with hatred against the male gender, they end up turning full circle, aligning themselves with ultra conservative religious ideology without even knowing it. I have been trying to find a term fir the for a while so I like “patriarchal feminism.” Both radical feminism and ultra conservative religiosity end up hurting men from different angles but the result is the same.… Read more »
Forgive me if I mis-speak on this. If I follow you, that’s a pretty provocative notion there: It corresponds with one aspect of feminism (specifically, the notion that, as feminism might phrase it, that ‘patriarchy hurts men, too’). But, be that as it may, you’ve shown that this is also beside the point: Because those particular instances of ‘patriarchy’ you mentioned, among others, actually don’t seem to have hurt feminism, or contradicted with its objectives (as it sees them). If anything, they coincide. Ideologically speaking feminism presents itself to be the singular antidote or antithesis to patriarchy (as it… Read more »
I think it’s essentially true that many self-described feminists, like so many others with so many other issues, see the issue/world in black and white. Or at least they WANT to see it that way, so it all fits into a neat and simple dichotomy, which means they don’t have to think too much. I am male, so to them that means I am privileged and I enjoy the benefits of patriarchal society; furthermore, I’m at fault for the patriarchy, and it’s my duty, should I want to elevate myself to the status of decent human being, to stop it.… Read more »
“When pressed, most people think ABOVE such simplicity: they won’t say ‘yes, I think all men are bad,’ but when not confronted with such a direct question, their answer tends to fit these simple equations, and their ‘logic’ warps to justify them.”
I think this is very true; brilliant, in fact. But I never put the pieces together before now- it speaks to the power of false equivalences, and the power of engraining them. Thanks Paul.
It does not sound like the author’s experience was “much like [Aaronson’s],” unless he is leaving out significant detail from his personal account. “Shy…nervous…unlucky” can in no way equate to Aaronson’s perpetual feeling of dread day-in and day-out for nearly a decade. In addition, from what I gather from the original comment, it was not about feminism ‘hurting’ him. It was about the all-too-familiar struggle of shy, nerdy guys who are told (or have to guess) what NOT to do, but given no training or socialization as to what they SHOULD be doing, what IS okay to do or feel.… Read more »
I’m waiting on a comment in moderation – I seems to be stuck.
Trying to post, so please forgive me if this double-posted Feminism and feminist ideological structuralism has far, far deeper problems and fault lines than Andrea Dworkin, Dworkinism, or one person’s limited interpretations of it, and of gender theory itself. Contemporary post-second wave feminism’s flaws are far more immediate, fundamental, and systemic than just Dworkin’s own fundamentalism. There’s something intellectually disingenuous to suggest that the bar for ‘proving’ that feminism is really correct, nuanced, and objectively, externally cohesive (and thus, beneficial to men, and to women as well) is simply that one very un-nuanced interpretation of it -based on… Read more »
I agree entirely with your point about antagonists. To put my own feelings across, somewhat less eloquently:
At what point is a feminist screw-up NOT the fault of the patriarchy, and a fault with feminism? It is rarely considered to be the latter, and not the former.
And it does reek of “but the devil made me do it”.
I could have been a bit more effective myself in my original comment, and fleshed a few things out a bit better. I think the OP is praising Dworkin by faint damnation. Be that as it may, whether one lauds or condemns Dworkin’s writing, philosophies, and additions to contemporary feminist theory, the relative integrity OF feminist theory cannot be effectively reduced down one or two people: It cannot be tested effectively by simply determining where, how, or if Aaronson got Dworkin right or got her wrong. Neither can it be by determining if, where, or how Dworkin got men right or got… Read more »
Which definition of feminism are we talking about? The one that demands that feminism is the belief in the inherent equality of men and women, and the movement to seek such equality in society? Or is feminism defined by the movement itself, in which case it includes less noble ideas, like the one that defines all heterosexual sex as rape (of women by men)? My understanding is that feminism in the 60’s celebrated women’s sexuality and sexual freedom. I think what happened from there was that some influential people, like perhaps Dworkin, convinced a large part of the feminist community… Read more »
Regarding “The Tired Notion That It’s Feminism Hurting Men” Pointing out that feminism may hurt men, doesn’t imply neither that it’s the only thing hurting men, nor that it is the only thing doing so or that all men will be hurt all of the time. Feminism is fully capable of hurting a bigger or smaller sample of men both in collaboration with, as well as in opposition to the patriarchy. However many proponents like to paint the picture of Feminism as sugar and spice and everything nice, but matter of fact is that no “–ism” can be everything to… Read more »
Now THIS is an assessment I 100% agree with. Well done! I would put it like this: When Scott Aaronson opened a book by Dworkin for the first time in his life, the damage did not begin there, it had already been done long before. At some point he speaks of his bad experience during the “formative years” after he became 12 — but I am convinced by theat point you are already formed more or less. You have to look further back, into the mental climate we were immersed in before we ever heard of gender theory. And that… Read more »
It doesn’t matter. It will all sort itself out. It will look something like Japan before it’s over which will make all supporters of the environment happy. That’s a lot of future carbon footprints eliminated.
Is it really hard for feminists to understand, SOME PARTS of feminism is really toxic and do harm men? It’s like watching a religion or cult try to defend itself now. If you use a loose label like feminism, that is also used by people who are toxic, then unless you’re willing to separate yourself to a new label (feminism 2.1.0019 mkIII) then you will get the good and the bad views of your group.
Which parts are toxic again? Can you please reiterate them for the rest of us who don’t follow or subscribe to the patriarchal idea of feminism?
Did you read the article? Even the author was smart enough to try and distance themselves from feminists like Dworkin.
In general – Duluth model and the harmful effects which were possibly unintended side effects. Primary aggressor laws which tie into that. Anti-violence campaigns are good, but highly gendered ones with a lack of similar campaign for males can lead to lop-sided laws and badly implimented policies, especially when coupled with toxic areas of feminism. Being misleading on the pay gap too is also a problem.
TERF’s and sex negative feminists, all PIV sex is rape type feminists, the idiots who rattle on about #killallmen or those that laugh about misandry, Jezebel’s, etc.
So what did you think of Marcotte’s response? She’s a major feminist voice.